west atlas spill
25 Aug 2009
WA Oil Spill A Disaster Waiting To Happen
Environmental considerations have been sidelined in the race for resource riches from Western Australia, writes Ben Eltham
The Exxon Valdez oil spill was 20 years ago this year. With a third-mate at the helm while the captain was probably drunk, the giant oil tanker ran into a reef off Alaska's Prince William Sound and spilled 10 million litres of oil. Twenty years on, the oil giant Exxon Mobil — the world's most profitable company in 2009 — is still fighting Alaskan fishermen and Inuit plaintiffs in US courts, trying to get the damages against it reduced.The Exxon Valdez spill was undoubtedly a public relations disaster for the company, but it's hard to argue it has had any material effect on the corporation's profits or operations. The tanker has been repaired and, according to Wikipedia, is still sailing under the name SR Mediterranean and is operated by a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon Mobil.
Now we are facing a serious oil slick of our own. On Friday, the West Atlas oil and gas rig in the Timor Sea sprang a leak somewhere down its roughly 3.5 kilometres of drilling pipes. Oil started leaking out and is expected to continue to do so for up to 50 days. A 14 kilometre oil slick has spread out from the rig on the surface of the Timor Sea.
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has responsibility for maritime accidents in Australian waters and has appeared to act quickly on the incident, sending at least two planes to spray chemical dispersants on the water to try and break up the spill. Meanwhile the parent company that owns the rig, the Thai-owned PTTEP, is "rushing" a relief drilling rig from Singapore to try and contain the spill. It will still take around three weeks for the relief rig to reach the spill site.
Even the Australian Maritime Safety Authority agrees this is a major catastrophe. "It's certainly a big spill," ASMA spokeswoman Tracey Jiggins told the ABC. "It is a major operation, so I'd certainly say it is one of the most serious spills that we've had in recent years."
The spill has predictably drawn fierce criticism from green groups and parliamentarians such as Bob Brown. Referring to the proposed $50 billion Gorgon gas development trumpeted by the Federal Resources Minister last week, Brown said "Martin Ferguson says there's no way there'll be environmental problems with Gorgon. Well, it's much bigger [than the West Atlas] and of course this makes his assertion about the massive Gorgon development laughable."
"Clearly, spills like this will occur where there is drilling for oil and gas and they're an enormous environmental hazard, even though, at the end of the day, companies pay zip for the environmental damage that's done."
Part of the issue Brown is referring to here is the decision — still to be made by Environment Minister Peter Garrett — over whether to give federal regulatory approval for the massive Gorgon development. While Gorgon will mainly be drilling, extracting and then liquefying natural gas (which will then be exported in massive ships as LNG), the development pressures it will exert on the pristine Kimberley wilderness will be significant.
But does anyone seriously believe Peter Garrett will block the development? The Rudd Government made a special set-piece announcement of the deal in Parliament last week, even excusing Martin Ferguson from his Question Time duties so he could fly to China to announce the coup.
Last month, newmatilda.com explored the boundless "quarry mentality" that dominates Australian energy policy and is driven by what appears to be a very personal commitment from Martin Ferguson to the endless growth of Australian extraction industries. The rush to approve the Gorgon development is no exception. So hungry is the Western Australian Government for resource riches that it has already given the project environmental approval. It's amazing how "environmental approval" always seems such a formality for multi-billion dollar projects.
Don't worry: Minister Garrett insists that this oil spill "won't affect" his decision on Gorgon. Feel reassured? The LNG industry certainly does. After all, following a vocal campaign by Woodside boss, Don Voelte, they've already extracted a government concession for 66 per cent of their prospective carbon permits for free. That's billions of dollars you, me and the rest of the economy will have to pay through higher household bills and other flow-on costs, just to quieten down the shrill squawks of the LNG rent-seekers.
And who is one of the key corporate players running the Gorgon development? None other than Exxon Mobil.
But when it comes to Western Australian resources, money has always talked louder than the environment.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
This is truly a minor issue, it should not be a barrier to economic development.
Its really uninspiring for the every day person to continue practicing a light footprint when multi nationals can wipe away that effort and good will in one big swipe by by passing the environmental approval and marching ahead with such a huge project with no interest or commitment to the sensitivity of the pristine environment they are extracting their million dollar deals from. When are we going to stop choking the planet with all the environmental destruction for short term monetary gain.
I thought Peter Garrett had a plan that we all hoped he would be able to implement
by joining the Labor Party. It seems politicians profession is not that different from prostitution, you sell your soul for either.
Is it not up to us then to instigate change and motivate the masses to make to politicians at the top sit up and take notice of what we people want? What can we the ordinary people do to help turn this tidal wave of blatant ignorance by the governing bodies while we stress and worry and do our bit as we get a daily blast through the media about the future of the planet in the face of global warming, global food and water shortages and other disasters. Is the media creating a vacume of apathy by desensitizing people. Still living in hope to have a life for our future generations, ready for more effective change.
This is a pretty poor piece of "journalism". It is titled "WA Oil Spill A Disaster Waiting To Happen" but nowhere in the article can I find any assertion to that effect or any arguments to support the assertion made in the heading.
This actually typifies what is wrong with the most people today. They pick a single incident and try to paint the whole world with the same brush and seek to influence policy on that basis. Examples might be:
1. Because somebody kills another person in a so called "one punch" incident and walks out of court without a custodial sentence, all one punch deaths should result in a mandatory sentence regardless off the circumstances.
2. Because there has been a well control incident in offshore Australia for the first time in living memory, it was an incident waiting to happend and all offshore oil and gas development should be banned.
Fatuous ideology in both cases.
tobeornot, join GetUp! or Wilderness Society or Greens if you want to do something. GetUp is currently running a new enterprise called Re-Energise! to try and get grass roots action going, knowing that Krudd and Co. are a total waste of time.
I think that this may be the end of Peter Garrett as ‘Environment Minister’.
He will of course, have to authorise Gorgon, as Ferguson and Krudd have pushed him into a very hard place, with no avenue for escape. Or he can escape, by resigning before making a decision that he will regret for the rest of his days. And so will we! He would also have to resign from Parliament, as Krudd and ‘Sell The Country’ Ferguson will crucify him.
How he could possibly say ‘yes’ to the Barrow Island ‘development’ at a time when that West Atlas rig is pouring pollution into the air and sea in massive quantities (and it is likely that the actual size of the spill will be not be released to the public, for fear of reaction)?
When you have sold your soul to Krudd and Ferguson for a few dollars (30 pieces of Silver?) you do not have much in the way of standards left to live by.
I doubt that he could ever go back to the ‘Oils’, even, as a deeply flawed character.
This mess also shows just how totally unprepared we in Australia are for massive oil spills like this one, at the same time as we are giving away drilling permits as if they were cup-cakes. Desperation!
Corruption, I reckon! Who is getting paid for all these permits?
Just WHO DOES run this country????
Peter Garrett has ALWAYS been a political whore!
He ran for the senate in the eighties for the Nuclear Disarmament Party and failed to win a seat, at which point he bailed out. That signifies that political self interest was more important to Peter Garret in 1983 than commitment to a cause!
Twenty years later he gets preselection for a safe ALP seat and goes straight to the front bench as Minister for the Environment (minus Climate Change). How long do you suppose he worked behind the scenes to get that gig?
Where will we when they leave us a Quarry?
US Forces give the Nod?
It’s a setback for our country?
All too much like hard work!
Here’s an solution. Completely stop all oil and gas extraction from all Australian waters. Now. No waiting.
Dear Collar,
I like the cut of your jib, sir!
I would also like to add a few choice observations of my own - from a stylistic point of view - about the journalistic merit of this (sic) article.
a) "according to Wikipedia" - never a good thing to put into print.
b) "sprang a leak somewhere" - again, doesn’t really inspire credibility or a sense factual accuracy.
c) "the spill site" - how does one spill something underwater? Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of an oil slick (and its source)?!
d) "the development pressures it will exert on the pristine Kimberley wilderness will be significant." - Ok. Cool. The veiled point of the article has finally revealed itself. So, you’ve got me on the edge of my seat. What’s going to happen? Oh. Oh, I see. The author is so confident that we all appreciate his understanding of ‘significant’ that no further explanation is warranted. Not even a beloved hyperlink is necessary here.
e) "But when it comes to Western Australian resources, money has always talked louder than the environment." Wow. What a way to end. It really sums up the article nicely. It has everything. From credibility destroying colloquialism ("But when it comes to.."), through suspect grammar (‘Western Australian resources’), all the way to butchered, tense-defying metaphors ("money has always talked louder than the environment.")
meh..
you propose "Completely stop all oil and gas extraction from all Australian waters" as a "solution". As a solution to WHAT, exactly??
You also say it should happen "now! No waiting"! Are YOU ready for that? Here is what you "solution" means…
no transport other than walking or horseback (which is just as well because there wouldn’t be any sealed roads anyway)
no house lighting or heating
no large scale agriculture - EVERYTHING tilled by hand or beasts of burden (are you feeling HUNGRY?)
no plastics or carbon fibre materials - that means everything from wrappers to tennis rackets and golf clubs and the balls used
No electronics! That means no internet (not a problem because there wouldn’t be any electricity to run your computer anyway!)
No reticulated water
are you really READY???
I’m going to have to give Ben A ‘B’ for effort there Bob Karmin. After all, he has raised a good discussion point in his article & you have to admit, it’s given you something to talk about, even if it’s his writing style. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind filling in the so called missing gaps of environmental damage, or we could just revert to other sources that have previously discussed oil spill damage to aquatic marine life.
The wonderful thing about Ben’s story for me, is that I can exercise the knowledge that I already have about the issues he raised & be able to translate them into facts of relevance for myself. The relevance to me is the methods which are being used to drill for oil, how much or how little maintenance is being instigated & what the cost to rectify the current problem will be & if Ben hasn’t given those facts, I’m hoping that someone may tell us, or give a related site as they usually do & at the same time, bring a little bit of other discussion into the scene.
And Peter Garrat is just the Labor parties ride on the Rock Stars back to being elected.
Dear Atheistno1,
"I’m going to have to give a ‘B’ for effort" - That’s wonderful. I completely agree with your sentiment. I too think that in a learning environment the overriding perogative of grading should be to encourage the development of expression, as opposed to the more stoic aim of ‘classifying’ (and potentially stigmatizing) the student. I was, however, writing under the naive assumption that this was a website aiming to provide "intelligent coverage of Australian politics, business… etc.." I read nothing in the mission statement about this being an online crèche for budding journalists.
"Perhaps you wouldn’t mind filling in the gaps…" - It’s not so much that I wouldn’t mind, it’s more so that I - as the reader - feel a bit suspicious that I am expected to. Particularly as I understand one of the key aims of the article is to force an analogy between an accident involving oil (sticky, messy stuff that lingers), and the potential for an accident involving natural gas (explosive stuff that readily evaporates). The comparison smacks of a category-error (something I believe other comments on this thread have picked up on) and it is an error that is poorly masked by that most convenient of strawmen: ‘big oil.’
If Ben wants to talk about the ‘developmental’ impact of a massive natural gas development that’s great. I’m all ears. Let’s talk about port design, workplace safety, and light environmental footprints. I fail to see anything but obscurity in invoking vivid pictures oil covered turtles or penguins.
I just can’t fathom how the government signs off on Gorgon, then says it’s awaiting environmental approval. Oh, wait. It’s politics. Yes, and Wikipedia is a no-no (I teach that to first-year students).
http://theprlab.blogspot.com @prlab
Good to see someone thought about consequences Collar.
We’ll all need to be ready soon, so why not practice getting off the oil teat now?
AtheistNo1…
I wish you would have been my English and literature teacher because you are way too generous with your grades!
Your point is a very poor one. Allow me explain why..
You say "I’m going to have to give Ben A ‘B’ for effort there Bob Karmin. After all, he has raised a good discussion point in his article & you have to admit, it’s given you something to talk about".
Well, you could say exactly the same thing about it if he wrote a poorly reasoned piece with few facts about how black people are intellectually inferior to white people! The point of good journalism is to keep the public informed with well researched analytical pieces underpinned with FACTS!
But then you have already made it clear how you think, because you categorically state that you intend to "exercise the knowledge that I already have about the issues he raised & be able to translate them into facts of relevance for myself". I have always thought that the truth was the truth and facts are facts, and neither are the derivations of translations in people’s heads - the latter is realm of religion and not something I would expect from and atheist.
It’s also clear that when it comes to drilling methods and what has occurred on the Montara site that neither Ben Eltham nor yourself have the faintest idea of what went wrong, how it went wrong, or why it went wrong. These are things the industry and the regulators are already pursuing.
meh..
So I assume you are ready now, even though you couldn’t answer my question…
Mining interest will always try to get away with the cheapest methods available. Look at the destruction caused by Ok Tedi or mountain top removal in the Appalachians. Any major mining site needs strong government oversight to stop shonky practices and not leave it to self-regulation. Unionised sites with strong OH&S standards usually have better environmental safety outcomes as well. Big profits attract cowboys,some just wear suits to feign responsibility.
GraemeF
Oil and Gas is not "mining".
The whole process of offshore drilling and well construction is very expensive and in Australia it is stringently regulated.
Obviously not strictly enough.
There is nothing else that comes close in Australia industry!
UPDATE: Peter Garrett approves the Gorgon project
Bob, Collar and others, just to respond to a few of your points:
Citing Wikipedia: I stand by my decision to cite Wikipedia in this instance. While it is not always authoritative, in this article Wikipedia provided the most useful reference, given the notorious non-transparency of international shipping registries. In fact, I have since researched the renaming of the Exxon Valdez further, and established that the Wikipedia reference is substantively correct.
Here is another reference, originally from the Baltimore Sun, republished in the Sydney Morning Herald, which gives further details about the re-naming of the Exxon Valdez to the SeaRiver Mediterranean. I was unable to find an online shipping registry reference to confirm its Marshall Islands registration with IRI. It does appear as though the reference in Wikipedia to the re-naming of the tanker is correct.
Collar, to address your point. It seems you think that I am arguing from the particular to the general. In fact, there are many instances of environmental damage and dangerous accidents associated with West Australian resource development. For instance, .
Collar, in terms of your own logic, your point 1 is neither relevant nor consistent; sentencing guidelines have nothing to do with oil-spills, and even if we accepted your point, as I’ve argued, the record of resource exploitation in Western Australia is far from perfect. As for your second point, clearly we can quibble over the likelihood of any particular incident, but this incident certainly demonstrates that risks are involved and that accidents can happen.
Finally, I’m not arguing for the cessation of oil exploration in Western Australian waters. I am arguing that the environmental standards and guidelines appear to be regularly irgnored, by-passed or otherwise brushed under the carpet when multi-billion dollar developments are on the table.
OK, Ben…
You’ll need to a better job of explaining yourself.
You say "clearly we can quibble over the likelihood of any particular incident, but this incident certainly demonstrates that risks are involved and that accidents can happen." Is that your basis for claiming the Montara well control incident was an "accident waiting to happen"?? If so, then what makes it any different from any of the major airline disasters over the last twenty years?
You also write in your response "I am arguing that the environmental standards and guidelines appear to be regularly ignored, by-passed or otherwise brushed under the carpet when multi-billion dollar developments are on the table. " Have you got any evidence, or even a single example, to support this assertion as it relates to the upstream oil and gas industry in Australia? Even in the case in point, you are arguing that "accidents happen" but then try to claim that this is because regulations and standards were ignored or brushed under the carpet! What evidence have you got that this accident occurred because the operators bypassed or ignored any regulatory standards?
All of which makes my point #1 very relevant and consistent. You are taking an isolated incident (very isolated, it must be said) and using that as the pivotal point in trying to make an argument out of what is essentially your own personal opinion. That’s heading for Bolt and Blair territory, mate!
Collar, would that be any evidence IN ADDITION to the widely-held scientific consensus regarding the environmental damage imposed by greenhouse gas emissions, of which the Gorgon project will create plenty?
You want some evidence: here is a briefing from Blake Dawson Waldron about the WA EPA approval for Gorgon. One of the conditions that must be met is that the developers will inject "100%" of the CO2 generated by the gas mining underground. You can see the full document here.
This is a totally unrealistic condition and I am more than prepared to bet that it will not be met. For a start, the sequestration technology is in its infancy If you read the condition carefully, there is plenty of wriggle room - for instance it states that Chevron and partners "shall implement all practicable means" to sequester the CO2.
But hey - that’s okay. The state of Western Australian the Commonwealth have combined to indemnify the project against any future carbon emissions liability! That sure sounds like a regulation being brushed under the carpet to me!
In terms of the regulatory standards for West Atlas, I would have thought the oil spill is a prima facie breach of the Western Australian Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Substances Act 1987. Or are you suggesting that PTTEP played by all the rules and that they aren’t legally responsible for the spill?
Ben..
You started off with "WA Oil Spill A Disaster Waiting To Happen" and now you are on to "would that be any evidence IN ADDITION to the widely-held scientific consensus regarding the environmental damage imposed by greenhouse gas emissions, of which the Gorgon project will create plenty?"
Are you trying to divert the argument or simply change the subject?
My challenge is to your initial assertion that "WA Oil Spill A Disaster Waiting To Happen" and I have not sought to challenge the prevailing scientific consensus on CO2 emissions. Similarly, I have not sought to challenge the claim of double standards by governments on that subject, Peter Garrett first and foremost among them.
All you have done is reinforce my secondary point that use are using a single and isolated incident (the Montara well control incident) as a soapbox for you own personal opinions and ideology (anti big business environmentalism). So far you have completely failed to make the case of your own headline that "WA Oil Spill A Disaster Waiting To Happen", and your response to challenges to do appear to be attempts to obfuscate the argument and divert it away from your opening assertion.
You are right when you say that the Montara oil spill is a breach of regulations. PTTEP complied with their legal obligations and notified the authorities as soon as they became aware of the problem, and I have not seen any attempts by anybody, either business or government, to hush up this incident or sweep it under the carpet. Have you? PTTEP are legally responsible for the incident and consequences of the incident. Should it turn out that the root cause of the incident boils down to a failure to follow regulatory requirements or some form of cognitive negligence, then PTTEP and the personnel responsible will be charged and have their fate decided by the courts.
Risk Management?
What Risk Management!!
That the oil/gas leak was going to happen, was an absolute certainty.
The Kimberley/Timor Box exploration area is dotted with gas/oil rigs and exploration vessels.
Now any sane person would have thought that:
A. There would be a contingency plan in place to address this very problem should it arise. Especially having due regard to a realistic response time that would be a matter of a few days instead of nearly two months.
B. The whole exploration area is also in the cyclone belt. Anyone wanting to bet on whether a rig could withstand a Cat 4-5 cyclone and not break something would be very optimistic to say the least!
C. Why aren’t there prepositioned barges with the booms and chemicals to deal with the spills, should they happen. I’m only talking about 2 moderately sized barges that could pack in enough chemicals and inflatable booms to restrict the slicks and make them easier to break down using chemical reaction.
D. The oil/gas companies can well afford to fork out a measly $30-40 million for the above emergency response equipment, plus be able to supply a deep diving submersible and team and be able to get to any rig within 2-3 days.
E. What risk management assessments were undertaken and what were the recommendations, given that it was an absolute certainty that there would be an event such as this happening, considering the location and inherent risk in oil/gas exploration/exploitation.
Obviously due diligence and/or duty of care was not high on the list of priorities for both the Government and the commercial operators reaping the benefits from these oil/gas fields.
I’d like to see where the blame game goes as this unfolds……… Catbird
Catbird…
If you think that a leak of the type that happened here was an absolute certainty, then so is Armageddon!
A. There would be a contingency plan in place to address this very problem should it arise.
There WAS a contingency plan and it was executed as soon as the incident occurred.
B. The whole exploration area is also in the cyclone belt. Anyone wanting to bet on whether a rig could withstand a Cat 4-5 cyclone and not break something would be very optimistic to say the least!
Woodside’s North Rankin and Goodwyn platforms have withstood many cyclones, as have the numerous mobile offshore drilling units that have operated in the tropics for decades. I haven’t heard of any major damage or spills resulting from cyclones, have you?
C. Why aren’t there prepositioned barges with the booms and chemicals to deal with the spills, should they happen. I’m only talking about 2 moderately sized barges
are you only talking about two barges in the region or are you talking about "only" two per offshore installation???
D. The oil/gas companies can well afford to fork out a measly $30-40 million for the above emergency response equipment, plus be able to supply a deep diving submersible and team and be able to get to any rig within 2-3 days.
OK.. exaclty WHAT do you think a "deep diving submersible and team" would be able to do in this particular incident???
E. What risk management assessments were undertaken and what were the recommendations
All offshore installations require full risk assessments and must submit a safety case before they are allowed to even go near the site. I’m still bemused by your assertion that this incident was an "absolute certainty" - why didn’t you dial 000 a week before it happened?
I’d like to see where the blame game goes as this unfolds
Me Too! If it turns out that culpable negligence is involved then heads will roll!!!
Collar,
I used to sub contract labor to BHP Exploration in Darwin. I know a bit about what goes on out in the Timor Box and Kimberley exploration zones.
Firstly, point A. You call what they are doing now a contingency plan? If this happened in the North Sea, heads would certainly roll……
Secondly, the robustness of some of the rigs is undoubted, but there are some that are a mere loose collection of parts……an accident waiting to happen…..
Thirdly, that’s two barges all up. One prepositioned in Darwin and the other in Broome.
Fourthly, Deep diving submersibles are in use in the exploration game all the time. Saturation Divers using fully articulated pressure suits operate at depths to 2000ft.
Lastly, That something was going to happen was a foregone conclusion, just a matter of where and when. No one can guarantee the safety of rigs/exploration platforms. I’ve seen the results of structural failure that has never been aired in the media. As for spills, minor spills happen all the time. Rig Tenders usually end up treating these with chemicals and you never hear about it. I was on an Australian owned rig in ‘86 when approximately 2,000 litres of oil ended up leaking on that particular rig. Not a peep in the media.
Catbird…
Mobile Offshore Drilling Units are subject to the same maritime safety regime as every ocean going vessel.
I don’t think a barge in Broome and a barge in Darwin would have achieved much in this case. A 100 tonne barge would take 5 to 7 days to tow to the site (ie: they would only just be getting there now).
I have a fair idea about ROV submersibles. My question to you was "exactly WHAT do you think a "deep diving submersible and team" would be able to do in this particular incident???"
Lastly, no-one can guarantee the safety of ANYTHING! Also, minor spills happen everywhere all the time and are never reported in the media. 1986 pre-dates Piper Alpha and the Cullen report and the changes since then have been far reaching and comprehensive. Back in the eighties small industrial sites in cities would flush spilled diesel into drains which fed into creeks, cleaning chemicals likewise, and super clean microchip manufacturers contaminated ground water with really nasty chemicals.
Collar the Berator, It’s funny how I never said I knew much about the oil drilling business but it’s great to see how much informative material came out of the commentary of this social networking site & therefor have exercised my right to draw a judgment to the facts with the knowledge I have obtained. It’s funny how I keep encountering psychological suggestion from spiteful people with RMI (religious Mental Illness) who wish to tell other people what they are thinking & feeling in order to make themselves think they are better person.
Thanks for your post Catbird. It’s always great to hear some first-hand perspectives about the industry
Hi everyone,
Without desiring to be heavy handed or to shut down debate, I would like to urge commenters to try and stick to the issues and not mount personal attacks on those posting on this thread.
Thanks, Ben
Ben,
I can only assume you have no meaningful answers to my challenges to your attempts to mount an argument that "WA Oil Spill was A Disaster Waiting To Happen".
At this juncture I should point out that I was one of the original subscribers to New Matilda but gave up on it within ten months after copping a meaningless diatribe derived from the author’s personal opinions with no supporting logic or facts. I see that not much has changed in that time, assuming I were to take this article of yours and your responses to my challenges as a benchmark!
You can choose to take those challenges as personal attacks if you so desire. I don’t care! I have been sticking to the facts of the case and the issues as they relate to this incident more than anybody. I have not tried to "derive facts based on my personal knowledge", I have not played the man instead of the ball, and I have not tried to divert the debate or obfuscate what I have previously written.
If you wanted to write an article taking the government to task on the environmental approval for Gorgon, then you should have done that. If you wanted to write an article about the Montara well control incident being the result of regulatory failure or government turning a blind eye to resource companies taking engineering short cuts to save dollars, then you could also have done that. Instead, you have done neither.
While you may have a cheer squad of like minded people who want to believe what you say on ideological grounds, do you really expect to engage those who want to truly know the facts and understand what has happened on the West Atlas and how that regulators may or may not have failed to do their jobs properly? Speaking of failing to do a job properly, how do you see your role as a "journalist" in all of this?? Just to grab anything that comes up as an excuse to beat on your anti big business environmentalist drum or to investigate the FACTS, analyse what you find, and report to your readers in terms they can understand and digest?
Never mind, hey? As long as you can foam at the mouth on the internet about Gorgon you’ll feel much better about yourself!
Finally, your little pat on the back to a commentator who was out on a rig in 1986 for posting "some first-hand perspectives about the industry" is very cute! 1986 was a watershed year in the upstream oil industry? Do you know why? Do you know it’s what caused the demise of the USSR, for example?
And all the while you missed the REAL first hand perspective of the industry. Not just the "industry", but the West Atlas itself. Oh? Never Mind (AGAIN!)!!!
I would like to echo the sentiment expressed by Collar.
Collar’s initial point identifying the ‘fatuous ideology’ that seems to drive this article has still not be addressed by the author. The question here is (me thinks) this: is a simplistic assumption of ‘evil big oil’ the sole basis upon which readers are expected to connect the dots here?
I certainly believe it is judging by the author’s style of expression and what I understand to be his reasoning (see my comments above).
If this is not the sole link, then what are the others? and why has the author not elaborated on these (either in the article itself or in his subsequent responses)?
As an aside, I’d invite our preeminent atheist (and now, apparently part-time psychologist?!) to consider the concept of a self-defeating statement as well as the notion of a Socratic dialogue.
Thankyou Ben, glad to have some input.
Collar, the barges I speak of are motorised, LCM, Landing Craft Medium variety.
They have a rear bridge/wheelhouse with all the bells and whistles, including nav gear, auto pilot, comms etc. They would take about 24hrs to 2 days to get onsite from Darwin or Broome.
I appreciate constructive criticism, that’s how people learn from their mistakes and go on to do things better. You allude to first hand experience in the industry….tell all Collar, particularly your experience with West Atlas.
Catbird…
Assuming you wanted to use a larger landing craft capable of carrying a tank, say, then:
1. To reach the site from Darwin would take at least two days assuming the barge could manage and maintain a speed of 11 knots.
2. Notwithstanding (1) above, such barges are not designed for open seas and the flat bottom and lack of a conventional bow makes them difficult to control in open seas.
3. Notwithstanding (1) and (2) above, most of these barges are limited to 6 to 12 hours sailing time.
They also have a payload of less than 40 tonnes.
Apart from that, you have not outlined exactly what you would have these barges carry and do once they arrived at the site. Likewise the submersible ROV and diving team question was never answered.
Collar,
just to respond to your points briefly:
It’s great that you were an original subscriber to NewMatilda.com and that you are back as a reader and commenter. We really appreciate your engagement. I’m sorry that you were the victim of a "diatribe" which is why we do seek to moderate comments on New Matilda, so that everyone can discuss the facts just as you propose.
Secondly, I stand by my article and I don’t think there is any need to respond to your ‘challenges.’ I’m not taking your remarks as a personal attack either, by the way.
There is ample evidence that resource development in Western Australia imposes significant costs to the environment, including in this case a significant and damaging oil spill. Whether this spill is an isolated incident or an example of a broader problem, there is, as I commented earlier, no doubt that energy extraction inevitably entails global damage to the atmosphere through the unregulated emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These are "FACTS" also.
Thirdly, s a journalist I do my best to report on current events using the information at hand. I’m not claiming any special knowledge or understanding of the issue beyond what we know from the published sources. As far as I know, no journalist has yet had access to the West Atlas rig. If this seems like I’m "foaming at the mouth", well that’s a personal judgement of yours which I would respectfully disagree with.
Finally, I just wanted to unpick this charge of being an "anti-big business environmentalist." I’m not opposed to for-profit enterprise, big or small, but I do believe commerce should be regulated for the good of all. Sometimes this includes regulating the damaging externalities that business activity entails - like pollution.
Ben…
You are naturally entitled to have an opinion and to stand by it - that’s a right that everybody shares and there’s not even a need to justify one’s own views on the world to others.
However, when you are sticking to an opinion you should make it clear that is what you are doing. There’s something not quite truthful about a headline that reads "WA Oil Spill A Disaster Waiting To Happen" and then not making a case to support the headline. The simple fact is your article does NOT make the case touted in your headline and you have not given any facts or arguments to support the assertion made.
You are entitled to hold an opinion that says "WA Oil Spill A Disaster Waiting To Happen" even if you can’t support it with facts or logic - that’s how religious people live their entire lives! However, as a journalist you owe it to your readers to make it clear that it is merely your opinion.
In case anybody is interested in the frequency of disasters waiting to happen, apparently the last time there was am offshore blowout was 1984 and there have been more than 1500 well drilled in Australian waters since then.
The quality of the comment on this blog seem to be below par. It has slipped into personal tagging and ridiculous nit-picking.
No one can deny that a disaster HAS happened!
No one can deny that with still weeks to go until the relief rig is positioned and starts relieving pressure on West Atlas, there is going to be one Hell of a lot of more oil and gas ‘spilled’ (and it sure has spilled) and consequently a lot more of that toxic dispersant.
No one can be sure even that this pressure-relieving is going to work.
No one can be sure that the leak CAN be stopped any time soon. It is entirely possible that this leak will continue for years, with incredible damage to marine life and the Kimberley coast, not to mention the reputations of various pushers of this kind of very profitable ‘drug’, and the pollies such as Barnett, Ferguson and Albanese.
I doubt that anyone can deny that already marine life has suffered tremendously, perhaps to the point of mass deaths. How can we ever know? All such evidence will disappear, with no one to record it. Maybe wales will disappear from the WA Coast.
No one can deny that the Barnett and Krudd governments are in damage control, trying desperately to deny all reports of a disaster happening on their watch, when they desperately want to exploit the Kimberley area for all they can get out of it, and they DO NOT want any ‘environment’ to get in the way of their greed. These ‘boys and girls’ play very hard-ball indeed, when mass profits are concerned!
Even photographic evidence from Greens Senator Siewert is not going to deter these greed-driven merchants of death (and profits) from trying convince everyone that black is white, and that everything is under their control. They want everyone, and that very much includes the Media, to lose interest in a big hurry, and I do not doubt that this will happen, unless the Greens and funnily enough, the Opposition (Hunt) keep it firmly in the public spotlight. I reckon Hunt will be quickly slapped on the beak!
Those who want it covered up and forgotten are very lucky in that this area of Australia is very sparsely watched by anyone with any journalistic skills, and the people living on the coast, and living off the produce of the sea in that area, will be last persons to get any say on the matter.
I also see that my entry of yesterday on this subject has been censored out of existence.
Collar,
There are several LCM type barges in Darwin that operate across the Top End delivering all sorts of goods. They generally carry around 300+ tonnes of freight, not to mention the vessels own fuel, water and its own weight, which is generally around 600 tonnes gross. Barge Express and VB Perkins are the main operators and their barges get along at around 15Kts. I’m a qualified skipper and have had a lot of experience with these vessels and to tell the truth, I am quite surprised that such a contingency is not in place.
These vessels can handle seas in a Cat 4 cyclone. These barges usually carry around 150 tonnes of fuel. 50 tonnes of water and thats all stored in their own dedicated fuel and water tanks built into the vessel without impeding the cargo deck. They can generally stay at sea for around 2-3 weeks. They act as mother ships for the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) Fleet and have been doing so for the last 30 years.
As to what I suggest they carry….
1. 100 Tonnes of dispersant chemicals and required transfer pumps for dispersal.
2. 100Km of inflatable boom sections - Approx 150 Tonnes, including 3 compressors to inflate these booms and their ancillery equipment.
It’s not rocket science. The cost would be approximately $8Million per unit, but that would be offset by the amount of damage limitation that these vessels would do. Considering the amount of money in exploration and drilling, it is a drop in the ocean so to speak…..
Catbird,
What you say makes sense but thinking about maybe a conventional rig supply vessel makes more sense? Or just keeping the material onshore ready to load in the case of an emergency?
Ben Eltham, totally vindicated 70 days later. Well done Mr Ben.